Porter v. Commissioner of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** KENNETH PORTER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 17847) Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued October 25 officially released November 20, 2007 Robert J. McKay, for the appellant (petitioner). Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state s attorney, and Catherine Brannelly Austin, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Kenneth Porter, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of the habeas court, which had denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his petition for certification to appeal. Porter v. Commissioner of Correction, 99 Conn. App. 77, 78, 912 A.2d 533 (2007). The Appellate Court concluded that the habeas court properly had determined that the petitioner had not met his burden of proving that his appellate attorney had been ineffective in his representation of him for failing to brief properly the defendant s claim that the trial court had failed to give an orally requested jury instruction on lesser included offenses. Id., 84 85. We thereafter granted the petitioner s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the petitioner s appeal? Porter v. Commissioner of Correction, 281 Conn. 922, 918 A.2d 272 (2007). The petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the habeas court s determination that his trial attorney s actions had not constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
